This is Hoke's 11th year as a head coach, and RR's 20th year. RR has a better win percentage over his much longer tenure. RR has 8 conference championships; Hoke has none.

Brandon paid more for a quality DC (Mattison) than he paid the DC and OC combined under RR. Almost immediately, UM went from one of the worst defenses in the country to a steadily good defense ever since (even in the first year, without "Hoke's guys").

On the other hand, our offense has steadily regressed from the heights of 2010.

If, after watching the Akron, UConn, and PSU games this year, you think we have built an incredibly sturdy base of a program, especially on offense, that is your right. Others, who have seen what Borges has done throughout his journeyman career, or the lack of OL development under Funk, see things differently.

But given your original statement regarding coaching acumen, you may want to tone down your comments on RR and Hoke. (Or, at least until Hoke catches up in the win column, wins a few conference titles, etc.)

I think Coach Rod is a good coach. I think Coach Hoke is a better coach for Michigan, if for no other reason than his program will not be attacked from all sides.

You quote "Hoke's guys", but I have never, nor will I ever, say such a thing. A coach's guys are the players on his team.

Regarding the regression of our offense, you are just wrong. By almost all metrics, our 2011 offense was better than 2010. The same goes for this year being better than last. To wit, points per game in chronological order: 32.8, 33.3, 29.8, 42.4. Mind you, this only takes 2010 into account, and that was Coach Rod's only decent season.

More to the point, even if the offense had regressed (it hasn't), the team has gotten better defensively and on special teams. So, if your claim was true (it isn't), that would hardly be any sort of damning evidence, considering the rest of the team has progressed, as evidenced by our win totals.

But given your original comments on offensive regression, you might want to tone down your comments on everything (or at least until the offense regresses, your statements become true, etc.)

Let's take his best year, shall we? One of those wins was 67-65 3OT against Illinois. Obviously that could have been a loss. Another was a game-winning drive against ND to win 28-24. That could have obviously been a loss too. Oh, and let's not forget he almost got caught the week after the ND game by UMass, who was an FCS opponent...only won by 5 points that game. Beat IU by one whole touchdown. Wowza.

And that was a season with 6 losses. And it was his best year here. So soon we forget how bad it really was.

I mean, we're talking about a team that's 6-1 right now. Obviously a large question mark looms over their heads given the gauntlet that faces them in November. But, Hoke doesn't deserve to get crucified for anything until there's a real reason to (and no, almost losses are NOT a real reason). If he finishes the year 0-5...yeah, maybe we should crucify him then. Maybe you can start to compare him to RR then. But right now, that comparison is laughable at best.

Hoke HAS used a system that he doesn't prefer because it better suits his players. The past two seasons have actually occurred, right? Am I losing my mind. We have been an almost exclusively spread to run team for the better part of three years. This season, we've move to more pro-style concepts, but even still, we have not abandoned the spread.

Hoke has lost a game this year. Even if you blame it all on the pro-style offense, this unsuitable offense has been better than any of RRs years. And this is ignoring the fact that not only did RR round peg/square hole the offense in 2008, he did the same thing to the defense for all 3 years.

This is his third season. He won 11 and 8 games his first two seasons. Ron Zook had several losing seasons. 8-4 would have been outstanding for the Zooker.

The problem here is not with Hoke, but with you and the fans who had unrealistic expectations. This was a team that had an inexperienced QB, inexperienced interior O, and inexperience at several spots on defense. It isn't Hoke's fault that you harbor delusions of grandeur.

Too soon to tell. It will fall on player development. The latter Carr years brought in plenty of talent but mirrored plenty of 3 and 4 loss seasons. i.e. we played well below our talent. Right now Hoke is working with a 2010 class that is well documented to be very poor and a 2011 class that DOES NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE STARTER ON OFFENSE. Think about that. I bet NO OTHER team in the country does not have A SINGLE STARTER on offense from the 2011 class. The 2010 and 2011 classes should be the bread and butter of a team in 2013. We have some contributors but not enough. The book on Hoke will be out by 2015 unfortunately because he has never "done it" (i.e. been elite) anywhere else we don't know if he can do it here. He is a hell of a recruiter - that is all we know. The game management leaves something to be desired as he is a major delegator during game time. We've seen some "curious" decisions. My main worry this year is I thought Hoke was more of a Les Miles, take a chance type than a Lloyd Carr play it conservative type - he seemed to do that in 2011 and 2012 when he had less to lose but now he seems in some games to have (PSU) reverted to Carr-isms. I could care less about interviews - they dont tell you much. He wont give away things he is unhappy with because it is coach speak. I will see with my eyes. He has a pass this year and unfortunately with another potential disaster year from the OL next year and losing almost all our WRs next year (Funchess and Chesson only to come back) he will get a pass next year. 2015 has to be it - only Morris will be a wildcard, and the schedule fits UM big time - rivals at home. It has to be a 1 loss type of year. Otherwise I dont think he is a coach that takes you to elite status - he just can take you to "Carr status" i.e. the old Michigan 3, and 4 loss seasons now standard for 20 years.

(edit: this was in response to a post by "Epic-Blue" at 9:11 pm which appears to have been since deleted. Possibly he was also "deleted"? Here's his original post, which I copied but then failed to paste until now:

"Brady Hoke

Is Ron Zook reincarnated! Hell of an recruiter, but can't put it all together! I predict many 8-4 seasons in or future. Mediocre coach. Mediocre results."

It was so epically bad that I couldn't help but respond hours later...)

Do you have any reservations about Hoke? Do you think it's possible to be excited about some aspects of our program (primarily recruiting) and worry about other things (refusal to modernize our punting, late game clock management, offensive identity/philosophy)?

I am concerned with Borges playcaling, but the scheme itself is fine. We know Manball works because we have seen Bama use it. Borges has shown a willingness at previous stops to go multiple, which is what I prefer anyways.

The punting scheme doesn't concern me one bit. I have seen punts blocked out of both schemes. Execution is what matters most.

I don't see worrying on here, but panicking. People are seeing the success of Ohio and to a certain extent, MSU, and compare that to UM's struggles, and they are freaking out. I think that is a mistake. Both of those programs have more experienced than UM. Ohio in particular has an advantage because of the smooth transition from Tressell to Meyer.

I agree that there are way too many people overreacting to single game outcomes and panicking and those people do bring down the overall quality of discussion, but I do think there are some legitimate concerns with consistency. And I don't think that it can be entirely attributed to youth.

That's all I hear! This program hasn't been nationally relevant in 15 years. Keep hiring those Michigan Men and this is what ya get! RR never had a chance here so don't even bring him up! The suck ass alums and traditionalist wanted him out from day 1! UCLA is in a Dog fight with Oregon with a younger team than Michigan has! You think Hoke and Co could go to Eugene and compete? Didn't think so! I want results!

agreed. The lingeage thing has become overstated. You need someone well versed in the Midwest, especially Ohio and IMO increasingly northern VA to NJ corridor is one place a UM coach needs to have ties to, if not himself his staff as there is a lot of talent and no major powers in that area. And far less competition from the SEC teams for those kids. They did go for Schiano (sp?) from Rutgers in the last coaching search so they dont appear married to it and frankly outside of Miles... if Hoke doesnt work out, I dont see any viable candidate who is part of the "lineage". It is a bit surprising with all the coaches churned out at UM there are not a lot of guys who went to other programs from either the Moeller or Carr years and are a hot commodity. So I think by default if Hoke is released say 2016 they will have to go a non "lineage" direction as there wont be many candidates unless the Miles 2.0 is the decision. I really could care less if they have an association with UM prior - as long as they have ties to Ohio and the HS staffs and are a winner. Hopefully it is Brady.

How many years at Michigan should a coach have without getting to a Rose Bowl? 4? 5? If Hoke can't do it in 2015 it will have been 5 years. How many are you willing to sit back and watch all the other teams get to it while we sit and watch? 6? 7? 10? How many chances?

Hoke will have a top ten program with his players in place by 2015...you didn't note Rose Bowl was the criteria for success. Personally, I want a return to MNC or the new playoff, whatever. We are currently a top 25 team with an upward trajectory, 6-1, huge recruiting etc.

It was a game until the end of the third quarter. Then a bad offensive game plan, a turnover prone QB, and a refusal to take what the defense was giving then turned the tide. Hmmm this all sounds familiar somehow.....

next week is critical for this staff the honeymoon is over. Youth had nothing to do with not having e a QB ready when Denard went down in the Nebraska game last year, youth had nothing to do with not having a center ready to play this year, youth had nothing to do with having a full off season of spring and summer practices, and still not knowing your team couldn't block power, youth had ZERO to do with 27 rushes for 27 yards.

Why did Mork have Maxwell in at the end of the ND game? Why couldn't Texas figure out how to stop BYU's zone read? Why cannot Bama figure out how to stop Johnny Football? What's wrong with LSU's defense? How can MSU's WR's be so consistently inconsistent?

You act as if other teams don't have similiar issues when in fact they do.

Couple of B 10 championships vs basically Ohio state. The b10 was the worse conference in the 70's and 80's. Bo got his ass whipped in bowl games!! Look at his record. See it's fans like you that won't let go of the past. What Bo coached like 30 years ago. Move On!!

I mean winning what? We have one NC since Truman was in the White House. It'd be nice to be able to hang your hat on something more. I mesh the way he said it sucked but the gist of his point isn't invalid.

If you're fine with 9-3 and nothing to really shoe for it that's cool but I don't think it's unreasonable for fans to want more.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a B1G championship ring that means an awful lot to me. I, personally, don't give a fuck about your expectations. And I know for a fact that no one involved with the program does either.

We have won. We've won a lot of games. We've won quite a few conference championships. We've won a national championship. People have broken bones and spilled blood for every one of those wins, and also every one of those losses. That their efforts don't satisfy you is a shame, because Michigan has been damned good for a long time. If your complaints were legitimate, I would have no issue with them. But they aren't. Michigan has won. Michigan will continue to win. You should hope that the rate of winning matches your expectations, but know that no one gives a fuck.